People v. Cooper
37 Cal. App. 5th 642
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In Jan 2017 Sheila Cooper struck another car; officers observed signs of intoxication (slurred speech, odor of alcohol, unsteady gait) at the scene.
- Officers transported Cooper to the station (she was likely handcuffed during transport but cuffs removed before tests) to administer field sobriety tests (FSTs).
- At the station Officer Colwart demonstrated and asked Cooper to perform several FSTs (HGN, modified Romberg, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand); Cooper performed HGN and the Romberg (gave a 23-second estimate), but refused walk-and-turn and one-leg stand, citing tight jeans/thighs and a disability.
- Cooper also indicated she did not want to take any more tests and had difficulty providing an adequate breath sample; she ultimately refused further testing.
- Charged with DUI and DUI causing injury within ten years of a prior DUI; Cooper moved to suppress oral statements made after being taken to the station on Miranda grounds; trial court denied motion.
- Jury convicted on both counts; Cooper appealed arguing Miranda error as to six statements made at the station.
Issues
| Issue | Cooper's Argument | People/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements made at station during FSTs were protected custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings | Cooper: Transport to station rendered her in custody; her statements during FSTs (refusals, disability claim, "23 seconds") were elicited and should be suppressed | People: Statements were not interrogation but either volunteered or attendant to legitimate physical testing; Miranda did not apply | Court: Denied suppression. Statements volunteering inability/refusal and refusal to take more tests admissible; most statements not product of interrogation |
| Whether verbal responses during FSTs (e.g., refusing tests, citing disability) are testimonial protected communications | Cooper: These are incriminating statements and testimonial, so Miranda protects them | People: Such responses are nontestimonial or attendant to physical procedures (per Muniz) and admissible | Court: Adopted Muniz — statements stating inability/refusal are not Miranda-triggering interrogation and are admissible |
| Whether Cooper's numeric estimate (23 seconds on Romberg) was testimonial/calculative and thus protected | Cooper: The time estimate is like Muniz’s birthday-calculation and Bejasa — a communicative, testimonial response requiring suppression | People: Officer lacked probable cause at time; statements were either non-interrogative or harmless if error | Court: Distinguished Bejasa, found no probable cause before tests; any error in admitting the 23-second estimate was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether Miranda warnings were required before asking about submission to chemical test | Cooper: Questions about submitting to tests were interrogation requiring Miranda | People: Questions about whether suspect will submit to chemical test are not interrogation (Neville, Muniz) | Court: Questions/instructions about chemical testing and whether she wished to submit were not interrogation; statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda warning requirement and that volunteered statements are admissible)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defines interrogation and distinguishes volunteered statements)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (FSTs are physical evidence; attendant clarifying questions are not interrogation; some calculation questions may be testimonial)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (compelled blood sample is physical evidence not testimonial)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (questions about submitting to chemical tests are not interrogation for Miranda purposes)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (lineups and repeating phrases are physical evidence)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (handwriting exemplars are not testimonial)
- United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (voice exemplars are not testimonial)
- People v. Bejasa, 205 Cal.App.4th 26 (admission and Romberg timing held testimonial where officers had probable cause)
- People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (standard of review on Miranda suppression rulings)
- People v. Nelson, 53 Cal.4th 367 (federal standards govern Miranda suppression in California)